We audited the City of Chicago’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program.  We selected the City’s Program based upon our analysis of risk factors related to Program grantees in Region 5’s jurisdiction.  Our objectives were to determine whether the City complied with HUD’s requirements regarding (1) leases between rental new construction projects’ owners and households, (2) use and reporting of Program income, and (3) monitoring of projects. Leases between the owners and the households for Program-funded units in two projects included language prohibited by HUD’s regulations and the City

We initiated a review of the City of Los Angeles’ Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program due to concerns that CDBG-funded assets may be at risk.  We performed our review to address questionable costs identified during a prior Office of Inspector General review (audit report 2014-LA-0001).  Our objective was to determine whether the City maintained the required documentation for its CDBG-funded projects to support its vested interest and ensure that national program objectives were met. We recommend that the Director of the HUD Los Angeles Office of Community Planning and De

We audited the State of Vermont, Department of Housing and Community Development’s disaster recovery programs.  We initiated this audit because of the significant funding awarded and the Boston Office of Community Planning and Development’s concerns about the State’s capacity to administer this funding.  Our audit objective was to determine whether the State administered its disaster recovery programs effectively and efficiently in accordance with applicable regulations; specifically, whether the State had (1) the capacity to administer its disaster programs, (2) established and impl

We audited the Jefferson Parish’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program as part of the Office of Inspector General’s annual audit plan to review Community Development funds.  The audit objective was to determine whether the Parish adequately supported and expended its program funds in accordance with Federal requirements. We found that the Parish did not always (1) have documentation to support program expenditures, (2) comply with procurement requirements when procuring contractors for housing rehabilitation, and (3) provide adequate oversight for its subrecipients.  Thes

We reviewed HUD’s San Juan, PR, Office of Community Planning and Development’s monitoring of the Vieques, PR, Sports City Complex project.  The review was performed based on indicators identified in the audit of the Vieques Sports City Complex, Office of the Commissioner for Municipal Affairs’ (OCMA) Puerto Rico State Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Section 108 Loan Guarantee program.  More than 11 years had elapsed since HUD monitored the sport complex; however, the deficiencies identified remained unresolved.  The objective of this review was to determine whether HUD

We audited the City of Jersey City, NJ’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program based on a risk assessment that considered the amount of funding, the risk score assigned to it by the U.S.

We audited Miami-Dade County’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program.  The County was selected for review because (1) our audit plan included audits of HOME grantees; (2) the Miami U.S.

We audited the State of New Jersey’s Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery-funded tourism marketing program.  We conducted the audit based on a congressional request to review the State’s Hurricane Sandy tourism marketing contract bidding process and the appropriateness of the content of its marketing campaign.  Our objectives were to determine whether the content of the marketing campaign was proper and whether the State procured services and products for its tourism marketing program in accordance with applicable Federal procurement and cost principle requirements.&nb

We audited the City of Richmond’s Neighborhood Stabilization Program 1 (NSP1) in response to HUD Office of Community Planning and Development’s concerns over the City’s management of its NSP1.  Our objective was to determine whether the City administered its NSP1 in accordance with requirements related to procurement and cost eligibility. The City did not administer its NSP1 in accordance with requirements related to procurement and cost eligibility.  Based on flawed procurement decision making, the City awarded contracts to developers that lacked the capacity and financial resources

We audited the Municipality of Carolina’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program as part of our strategic plan, based on the amount of HOME funds approved.  The objectives of the audit were to determine whether HOME-funded activities met program objectives, home buyers complied with HOME’s primary residency requirement for the duration of the period of affordability, and the Municipality maintained a financial management system in compliance with the U.S.